Leadership1 distinct publisher2 min readUpdated
Berkeley Lab counts 2,061 GW waiting to interconnect, and a wait that has grown by 25 months since 2015. The executives selling the bypass say buyers pay for it inside compute pricing.
The Board Room · Leadership desk

Compiled by The Board RoomSomething wrong?How this is made
Sixty-one months is not a forecast. It is what happened to the projects that reached commercial operation last year, which means it describes a queue those projects joined around 2020 [2]. Berkeley Lab is blunter than its own average: completion rates are generally low and wait times remain long [5], and a substantial number of projects withdraw before they ever connect [6]. Read the 2,061 GW accordingly. It is a stack of applications, not a pipeline of supply [1].
Push the arithmetic forward and the planning problem gets specific. A request filed in 2026, moving at the pace of projects finished in 2025, is a generating asset around 2031 [18]. That assumes the queue does not get slower, and according to the Forbes report the queues and waiting times are doubling [7].
The part worth arguing with is how that delay reaches a company that has never applied for anything. Bill Tai, founding chairman of Hut8 and a member of ATLAS, puts it as displacement rather than escape: firms without their own data centres have moved the energy problem upstream, where they cannot see it [8]. His mechanism is that every cloud and AI vendor is competing for capacity on the same slow, monopoly-controlled grid, so when a provider cannot get new generation interconnected for years, the cost resurfaces as higher compute pricing, rationed access, or a delayed product rollout [9]. Tai's phrasing is that the company never touches a power line but inherits the consequences [10]. None of those three outcomes arrives on an invoice labelled "interconnection".
Ioana Hreninciuc of Runware describes the same bill split in two: buyers amortise large data centres built for traditional servers, whose legacy GPU and cooling arrangements are inefficient for AI, and then pay a scarcity premium on top because capacity itself is short [11][12].
Both accounts come from companies that sell the detour. Hut8 is an energy infrastructure and compute platform [8]. Critical Loop sells behind-the-meter power, on-site storage and flexible microgrids [14]. Runware has announced the Sonic Inference Pod, a container-sized data centre that needs no grid interconnection at all [13]. That does not make the queue data wrong; Berkeley Lab is not selling anything. It does mean the interesting number is missing. The report gives no price, no lead time and no fuel source for any of these alternatives, and a pod that skips interconnection still has to be powered by something. Until those figures exist in public, "bypassing the queue" is a procurement conversation with only one side costed: the five years you avoid, not the premium you accept instead.
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
Berkeley Lab's Queued Up: 2026 Edition found that new energy projects amounting to roughly 2,061 gigawatts of new capacity in the U.S. are actively seeking interconnection.
On average, energy projects built in 2025 took 61 months to go from interconnection request to commercial operations.
In 2015 it took operators almost half that time to get online: 36 months.
The Berkeley report states: "Completion rates are generally low; wait times remain long."
Numerous energy projects end up withdrawing entirely from the interconnection process.
New energy projects must go through a lengthy grid connection approval process, and the queues and waiting times are doubling.
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Solid third-party queue numbers, vendor assertion for everything else
The quantitative spine — 2,061 GW in queue, 61 months versus 36 months, low completion rates — comes from a named Berkeley Lab report and is internally consistent, but it reaches us secondhand through one article with no direct excerpt or link. The economic core of the story, that queue delay becomes higher compute prices and scarcity premiums for firms owning no data centres, has no pricing, contract, or customer data behind it.
Product announcements and one turbine anecdote, no deployment metrics
Bypass adoption is evidenced only qualitatively: a recent Runware pod announcement with no customers named, a general statement that Caterpillar turbines are shipping to facilities that cannot wait for transmission, and Critical Loop's described service offering. Forbes asserts well-funded enterprises are defecting from the grid but supplies no counts, megawatts, or named buyers, and Tai himself notes this cannot scale to national needs.
Real queue data stretched into an unpriced universal cost claim
The interconnection data supports a genuinely serious constraint, so the story is not empty. The overstatement is in the leap from queue length to a line item for every AI-using business, including small firms paying 'a premium on every user' — made by executives selling the alternative, with no cost figures and with the two vendors contradicting each other about who is most exposed.
Every expert quoted sells the bypass
All three named sources are commercially positioned in the outcome they describe: Hut 8 is an energy-infrastructure and compute platform, Critical Loop sells rapid behind-the-meter power, storage and microgrids, and Runware has just announced a no-interconnection container data centre. The article does not disclose this alignment, and no utility, regulator, or independent analyst appears to counterweight it.
One publisher, one article, strong numbers but interested interpretation
Confidence is limited by a single-source, single-publisher cluster with no corroborating coverage, no direct access to the cited dataset, and an all-vendor expert panel. The Berkeley figures are specific and mutually consistent, which keeps confidence in the delay facts materially higher than confidence in the cost and bypass-adoption story.
invest
Public miners are unplugging hash faster than the network, and rebilling it as colocation1 distinct publisher
product
Prometheus's 2.5GW Pecos plan skips the grid, and sits next door to its own fuel1 distinct publisher
invest
SoftBank's $200M Buys A Retrofit Kit, Not A New Excavator1 distinct publisher
product
Interconnection queues, not land or capital, now pick Europe's data centre sites1 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
1 article · August 21, 2026